Open discussion on rules for trading with scammers (Part 2)

[Pixxi0us]

2 hours ago, Big Ol Bessie said:

your gonna make it so much easier for scammers to wash there items and unload them

whats up bessie

Thats the reason why this discussion thread was open. This rule isnt stopping scammers to offload their items, there is many ways to sell the items such as marketplace, scm, mannco.store, bitskins, opskins, tradeit.gg. etc.
Many people is getting banned (some people already got banned for accidental trades with scammers) for nothing while others are knowingly trading with scammers but using other methods like buying trough a scammer alt, or the sites i meantioned above.

 

So basically there is a competition of who is the smartest one that can trade with scammers without getting caught and the ones whofail and get banned, so people still trade with scammers knowingly using other sites/alts which isnt banable.
The purpose of the rule was to discourage scammers to scam since it would be dificult for them to sell the items but as you can see thats not a problem for them noawadays.

Not the best explanation but i think you you get the idea.
 

[Surs]

Keep the rule as is.

[ѕιи]

On 5/1/2019 at 10:17 AM, polar said:

We're not the police. And it may or may not have any impact on scammers' ability to offload items. But sometimes you make a stand on what you believe to be the right thing to do. Do you build a community around people who are conscientious, diligent in their practices of doing things the right way, and believe in the value of honesty and carrying yourself with dignity and respect? Or do you say, screw it, free for all, free market for everyone - it's more work and may not hurt scammers so it's not worth it? 

 

I can understand and appreciate changing the rule if these reports are a burden on the staff and if we can't keep up with the work that goes into enforcing it. If that's the case, I'm all for doing away with it. But if that's not an issue, I believe in making a stand. 

 

With that, does this mean you don't believe there are other ways we could "take a stand", or other ways we are already doing that?

 

- We already ban scammers from the site and I also believe banning scammer fences to be a practice we should continue as well.

- The existence of this archaic rule has promoted this "stance" we hold for a time that predates a lot of us, and there has been a significant amount of people within this thread that have explicitly stated they won't be trading with scammers regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

 

I still don't see a practical reason to keep moderating this; would shifting our energy into educating the average user and handling scam reports not be an indication of where we stand? I fail to see how that would be the case.

[12th]

On 5/4/2019 at 11:23 PM, ѕιи said:

 

With that, does this mean you don't believe there are other ways we could "take a stand", or other ways we are already doing that?

 

- We already ban scammers from the site and I also believe banning scammer fences to be a practice we should continue as well.

- The existence of this archaic rule has promoted this "stance" we hold for a time that predates a lot of us, and there has been a significant amount of people within this thread that have explicitly stated they won't be trading with scammers regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

 

I still don't see a practical reason to keep moderating this; would shifting our energy into educating the average user and handling scam reports not be an indication of where we stand? I fail to see how that would be the case.

God sin is so smart, just delete the rule

[polar]

On 5/4/2019 at 11:23 PM, ѕιи said:

 

With that, does this mean you don't believe there are other ways we could "take a stand", or other ways we are already doing that?

 

- We already ban scammers from the site and I also believe banning scammer fences to be a practice we should continue as well.

- The existence of this archaic rule has promoted this "stance" we hold for a time that predates a lot of us, and there has been a significant amount of people within this thread that have explicitly stated they won't be trading with scammers regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

 

I still don't see a practical reason to keep moderating this; would shifting our energy into educating the average user and handling scam reports not be an indication of where we stand? I fail to see how that would be the case.

 

This is all great in theory, but practically?

 

How are you differentiating a scammer fence from someone who trades with scammers? Someone have to do 3 trades in a week with a scammer? 5 trades? 10 trades? Say a big time trader who makes 100 trades for unusuals a day has 3 of them come from scammers while someone else does 3 trades in a day, all from scammers. Considered the same? The rules were created the way they are to make it fair to everyone by saying no trades with scammers, period. Now, I am all for being more relaxed with the rules. Instead of bans for one trade, maybe a couple of warnings first. But those too are going to accumulate and prominent traders who make hundreds of trades a day are still going to end up with permanent bans. 

 

How do you propose shifting our energy to educate the "average" user? What would you be doing differently?

 

Anyways, as I have already said, if there are too many of these kinds of reports and it takes too much time, then please get rid of the rule. The priority should always be on scam reports. 

[Bobbyp02]

Idk what to say about this rule but I know that some people don’t even know that they’re trading with a scammer. For example a friend who has premium and has a good rep got suspended due to trading with a scammer in which they didn’t know about.

[NoCaloriePepsi]

I say just gut the rule in it's entirety. At this point the rule is the equivalent of this pic...

 

 

 

Newer trading sites, sites that have no real regulation of scammers using their services, and bots have created so many loopholes for scammers, they don't even need to use BP anymore to sell off their items. 

[R3SP4WN]

I’m just going to say it, with brutally honesty: removing the rule would increase my profits exponentially for someone like me who stands morally gray. I worry this rule would also blur the lines between traders buying from scammers and actual scammed alts, making it harder for bp.tf mods to actually ban people that create numerous accounts for the purpose of scamming. Finally I think that a removal of this rule would encourage more people to resort to scamming, as they will have a much easier time finding buyers for their items.

[Zeus_Junior]

3 hours ago, R3SP4WN said:

Finally I think that a removal of this rule would encourage more people to resort to scamming, as they will have a much easier time finding buyers for their items.

 

I fail to see how people trading with scammers is linked to those same people scamming.

Scamming still gets you banned. That is not going to change. If they wanted to start scamming they would’ve probably started by now.

 

And its also been said multiple times in this thread that scammers dont have a hard time selling off their scammed goods with the amount of bots and cashout sites.

[Phink]

Temporary bans would be cool no matter how long they are. 

My opinion might be a little biased as i am currently banned for buying a 15.5 key unusual from a scammer.

[Alex Mas]

I' m against the removing of the rule.

 

There are many trading sites and 2 of them are very famous and useful : markeplace.tf and backpack.tf . Mp.tf tries to prevent scammers from using it (CLICK ) while Bp.tf wants to make itself attractive for them.

 

You say that there are many other sites which scammers can use for  selling off their scammed items. But they are still trying to do it on bp.tf every day and you get so many reports about the people who trade with them that it is difficult for you to solve these reports. It means that bp.tf is profitable and convenient for scammers. And it will become even more convenient after removing this rule.

 

At the present, thanks to the current rules and fine work of bot developers (bot.tf, tf2-automatic) a potential scammer / alt can't sell his items to these bots ( except the case when an owner accepts an offer  by hand).

 

Taking into consideration the human nature and the fact that many participants of discussion are ready to trade with the scammers I strongly believe that only bans make a significant amount of users refuse from trading with scammers/alts.

 

Many people consider that trading on bp.tf is not easy because there are many bots that undercut. Besides, they are sure that competition is really great. After removing the rule these people will realise that scamming  has become much more legal. But it is not important for them if they will be banned or not. Only banned bots/users who buy scammed items are their concerns.

 

Why am I so sure?

There are a lot of forums and special sites in my region (Russia) that teach future scammers for FREE for further work on commission. ( I can give a lot of links and proofs but only in PM to mod. I don't want to advertise them here ). According to thousands of positive scammers’  reviews they earn much more than the majority of people trading honestly. Many of them have income which is twice higher than the average wage of citizens in the developing countries. Sites for offloading of their items are bp.tf and mp.tf. Of course it is also taught on Chinese / U S / E U sites.

 

Today my bot and many others won't accept trades from scammers / alts but after removing the rule the majority of them or even all WILL do it.

 

Now a lot of people accept these trades and you ban them. I think it is FAIR and I sincerely thank you for that. However, I would like to do it not in words but donating regularly to mods because I realise that moderating reports is a hard work.

 

 

Posted it using my alt.

[zol]

everyone who disagree with deleting try to tell almost the same things, but why cant you read all topic b4.

emm this guy with an alt..you are againts scammer alts and cant use your main acc to post it. lol what? are you afraid or smth?

[DuskShadow]

While I think trading with scammers can be scummy, a lot of good hats are in scammer backpacks, and some are limited ones that'll never be unboxed again. It's sad to see such good hats in dead backpacks. But at the same rate, if we remove the rule, we are basically encouraging scammers, letting them know that a steamrep ban means nothing, as they can still trade freely with others, and make a profit. Then again, they still make a profit regardless. There's just too many factors on each side, but being a collector, I'm heavily leaning towards the removal of the rule- a lot of the hats I want to collect are owned by scammers.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

4 hours ago, DuskShadow said:

While I think trading with scammers can be scummy, a lot of good hats are in scammer backpacks, and some are limited ones that'll never be unboxed again. It's sad to see such good hats in dead backpacks. But at the same rate, if we remove the rule, we are basically encouraging scammers, letting them know that a steamrep ban means nothing, as they can still trade freely with others, and make a profit. Then again, they still make a profit regardless. There's just too many factors on each side, but being a collector, I'm heavily leaning towards the removal of the rule- a lot of the hats I want to collect are owned by scammers.

 

Steamrep bans were never intended as a punishment or to prevent people trading, they are meant as a warning to help prevent people getting scammed.

[yeetfam69420]

Or (and this is just my opinion here), The whole thing could just be shut down entirely, at least until this jank-ass economy can be rebuilt in a way that doesn't ensure that new/poor traders don't end up becoming scammers unintentionally.  Speaking from experience, it's nearly impossible to get your foot in the door at first because of almost how predatory the current system is.  The way the current system runs seems to be basically encouraging people to become scammers as it's genuinely easier to trick someone (like some noob who just unboxed their first Unusual) to give up their items and sell them for no loss than it is to trade up to that same item honestly, and there's basically no penalty for them unloading their ill-gotten gains onto an alt or a friend's inventory.  Not just that, though, as there are a myriad of other (see: better) trading sites that have much more effective systems of denying scammers, and I can't actually name any of them because sites like scrap and bp are moderated by complete mongs and seem to believe that just mentioning a competitor's site violates the incredibly vague rules on advertising.

 

 

TL;DR this whole economy could use a redo or revamp

[yeetfam69420]

oops, double post

[Mrs TS]

How does one go about

Quote

end up becoming scammers unintentionally

 

 

And

Quote

The way the current system runs seems to be basically encouraging people to become scammers

No, greed causes people to become scammers.  

Scamming is a CHOICE !!!!

[yeetfam69420]

yes and greed is something that literally every human on the planet experiences, believe it or not.

 

12 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

No, greed causes people to become scammers.  

Scamming is a CHOICE !!!!

^this kind of attitude is the kind of thing i'm talking about.

[Mrs TS]

1 minute ago, yeetfam69420 said:

yes and greed is something that literally every human on the planet experiences, believe it or not.

LOL.....maybe the people you know but you are definitely delusional if you think literally every human on the planet experiences it.

[yeetfam69420]

 

1 minute ago, Mrs TS said:

LOL.....maybe the people you know but you are definitely delusional if you think literally every human on the planet experiences it.

It's literally part of our most basic instincts?  Doesn't matter how well they hide it, everyone experiences at least the smallest feeling of greed.

 

also being a snarky cunt really isn't a good look for someone who is literally the ultimate example of my point

[Mrs TS]

Might have been more effective by proving your statement with some sort of actual facts. But I suppose since you know it all already, why not resort to name calling to make your opinion on the human race seem more effective.

You must live in a sad world when you think everyone in the world is a potential scammer.  

[yeetfam69420]

34 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

resort to name calling

46 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

you are definitely delusional

 

 

 

also I never said everyone in the world is a potential scammer. What you fail to understand is that at no point did imply that the greed inherent in humans' natural instinctual urge to "get more" was a bad thing, as one could argue that such a trait was what helped us get to where we are today.

 

(also note that never once in any of my statements did I ever try to imply I knew what the flying toss I was talking about aside from what I've experienced in the world around me)

 

 

 

 

I just love calling "women" (citation needed) cunts to see how they try to turn it into a passive aggressive hissy fit 

[Mrs TS]

That's a good one, a hissy fit.  LOL   I could continue this with you, but your comments are of no importance to me.

 

So as not to derail this important thread with more comments on how your initial statement was FACTUALLY WRONG , I will cease replying to you. Carry on with your worldview.

 

[HarryG]

There's already tons of people who purposely trade with scammers abusing benefit of the doubt, removing the rule will just flood the market with stolen goods. As an anecdote, I've heard once or twice people on Vatican/Firepowered bragging about a nice buy they got from a scammer "because it was only a day ban".  Don't think for a second 90% of these profit traders wouldn't do it all the time if they could. The rules are fair the way they are now in terms of legitimate accidental buying; making it more lenient would just serve to cause problems at this point 

[hugh]

I'm late to the party, and I super pushed for the last change to make rules more lenient.

Sorry I TL;DR'd on most of the pages of comments, so what I'm saying may have already been said

 

I'm with Harry on this one - don't make the rules more lenient than they already are.

Yes you aren't the police, and yes purchasing stolen goods unknowingly is not a crime but proving knowingly purchasing stolen goods is difficult enough

 

Removing this rule would just open the flood gates to

1. Previously stolen goods which had been sitting in scammer backpacks to freely enter the market and money to be made by essentially thieves

2. Increase the likelihood of desperate legitimate traders to start stealing, since they can now apparently sell their stolen goods with less difficulty

 

There has to be some barricade to stealing to disincentivise it